Supernatural

I find this film immensely enjoyable. Sure it's ridiculous, but wouldn't any film with this title be a little silly? The cinematography is outstanding (particularly in the remarkable opening montage) and the cast is fine. The hero is Randolph Scott. Recommended.

Supernatural is a slow moving pic about séance versus science as Carole Lombard is exposed to the dark side via a shady mystic and an overzealous doctor. A dull plot and even duller characters. As a Lombard fan, I like to see how she fared early in her career. Her acting in this film is just so-so and it brings to light how much she improved in the last nine years of her life. The big plus is Randolph Scott, not for his acting but for his physique. He's definitely easy on the eyes in a movie that otherwise put me to sleep.

In "Supernatural," Carole Lombard stars as an heiress being extorted by a charlatan psychic claiming he is in communication with her deceased twin brother. While his plot is phony, her subsequent possession by an executed heiress is not--and the heiress has a vendetta against this fraudulent psychic.

"Supernatural" apparently had a troubled production, largely because Lombard felt the material was unsuitable for her comedy chops; though you wouldn't know it, as the result is a solid supernatural horror-melodrama that is anchored in an understated (and unexpected) raw performance from Lombard. The film's plot is rather routine, and some elements are a bit ridiculous (and ostensibly were even in 1933), but the real success of the film is that it manages to draw the audience in with its quietness. There are several scenes that linger on Lombard's character alone in the frame, and her nonverbal acting is highly communicative and serves as further evidence of what her talents were. While Lombard herself felt horror was a mismatch for her, I'd politely disagree.

The film ramps up when her character schedules a followup seance with the fraud psychic and actually becomes possessed. It's all good fun, and peppered with some marginally spooky moments. The black-and-white photography is atmospheric and effective, and at times it reminded me (stylistically) of the Val Lewton horror films that would come the following decade. The "possessed by a serial killer" plot would rear its head in subsequent decades in such films as "Witchboard" (1986), and the similarities there are visible.

All in all, "Supernatural" is a rather underrated film in the horror canon, especially as far as pre-code films are concerned. It seems to have been relegated as a footnote in both the genre and in studies of Lombard's career, which is a shame because it is actually a well-made, formidably-acted, and generally impressive horror film. Its ability to turn small, quiet moments into grand gestures is something to behold, and Lombard's understated acting helps hold the drama and thrills together nicely. 8/10.

Negative reviews of this film should be seen in context. Most Carole Lombard fans are looking for light comedies and romances, certainly not horror pictures. Horror fans, however, must be delighted to find Lombard starring in this movie from the Halperins, who produced the successful Lugosi vehicle "White Zombie" in 1932.

Only a few times in the 1930s' golden age of horror did these films get the star power and production they deserved. Among major studios Paramount led the way with this type of film, even predating Universal with John Barrymore's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in 1920 when the only horror films were coming out of Germany. In the '30s Paramount, encouraged by Universal's success, cast Charles Laughton in "The Island of Lost Souls" and Frederic March in a remake of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In "Supernatural" Lombard is fine in the lead role of a woman possessed by the evil spirit of a murderess. And while this film is not a classic, it is an effective horror film by a major studio. The fact that it rates 6.0 stars is amazing when you consider what types of films Lombard's fans are used to seeing her in.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have mixed expectations before I sat to watch. On the one hand, while not all her films are equal, I really like Carole Lombard. On the other hand, I was less than impressed with filmmaker Victor Halperin's biggest claim to fame and previous picture, 'White Zombie,' and I found his 1935 quasi-sequel 'Revolt of the zombies' to be even worse. The first moments of 'Supernatural' also give me pause: I recognize the stylization as common to older features, yet the opening quotes from Confucius, Mohamed, and the bible that generically speak about "the supernatural" come off as ham-handed embellishments. Ultimately I'm inclined to think this 1933 movie is modestly well made and modestly enjoyable, though flaws dampen the entertainment.

In a runtime of scarcely over one hour the plot seems to uselessly meander and drag for much of the first third (if not beyond), then rush in the last 5-10 minutes such that story beats feel forced, inorganic, and less than believable. It does pick up, though if the writing were tightened this may well have clocked in at less than sixty minutes. To that point: the themes of gullibility, fraud, trickery, and murder wrapped up in notions of supernatural doings should set of the alarm bells of anyone who exercises critical thinking. Even with the best suspension of disbelief, though, still other aspects of the storytelling raise a skeptical eyebrow - "Dr." Houston's "experiment's; Bavian's whole deal seems thin from this viewer's perspective; the resolution of the climax is altogether unconvincing. In the broad strokes the story is promising; the details are too often sketchy.

The writing is the most important part, and I find it a little wanting. I'm also again unenthused about Halperin's direction; though capable in comparison to the other movies of his that I've watched, his contribution still seems to me to be a smidgen bland in every regard. What I do like and appreciate are the production design and art direction, the hair and makeup work, and the costume design; the acting here is fairly decent. Arthur Martinelli's cinematography is fine, as is the editing. Only - nor do these aspects abjectly inspire, and how much do they really matter if the screenplay doesn't make the grade?

You could do better, you could do worse. No matter if you're watching as a fan of horror flicks, old movies, someone in the cast, or just a cinephile generally, there are contemporary titles much more deserving, but this also isn't altogether bad. The concept is great, and I just wish more care were taken in developing it for the screen. Don't go out of your way for 'Supernatural,' but if you happen to come across it, it's a passable way to spend one hour.